Contributor name John Phelan Occupation Contractor Employer FETON RANCH DEVELOPMENT City Glendora State or country CA ZIP 91741 Position Support Amount $250.00 Payment type Monetary Transaction date 9/4/2008 Committee name Protectmarriage.Com - Yes On 8, A Project Of California Renewal

Dearest dimwitted Shannon- If a company donated money to back a proposition to take away a woman's right to vote, I wonder if you would boycott that company. Women did not have the right to vote until 1920 in America, a right you now enjoy but never fought for in your life. The mormon and catholic churches (purposely not capitalized) have NEVER supported women's rights in any form. If your rights had been left to a popular vote, you would not be voting today. Also, please note that every time ANYONE does or says ANYTHING that these churches don't like they tell their MILLIONS of followers to boycott. We are not doing anything hateful. We want to be aware of where our money is spent. I refuse to spend my hard earned dollars to support those who think I am less than human. I'm sorry if you find that comical!

The leader of the Yes on 8 campaign said that we don't have "the right" to boycott. You can read this quote for yourself in the majority of the articles from major news sources about yesterday's protests. The fact that this individual believes that we don't have the right to choose where we spend our hard-earned money gives you an immediate sense of how accurately he (and the rest of Yes on 8 supporters) understand the principles of freedom that are intrinsic to America. A boycott isn't about hate, Shannon, it's about choosing not to hand over our money to people who think an entire group of Californians are second-class citizens. It's a choice to stop FUNDING hate.

How interesting that when it is your group who is boycotting, it is acceptable. But, I guarantee if I were to boycott all the gays who contributed to the No on 8 campaign, I would be labeled a bigot. Again, it is almost comical that you fail to see the hypocrisy of your arguments and actions. Seven - targeting specific people who participated in the democratic process not hateful enough for you? How about defacing places of worship? Are you going to come up with some half-baked excuse for how that is perfectly acceptable? OR how about resorting to name calling simply because someone disagrees with your opinion? Is that a good example of hate??

Shannon, you are a dolt. If you boycotted homosexuals for being homosexuals, you wouldn't be LABELED a bigot, you would BE a bigot. I refuse to give any of my money to support a company that will give my money to someone else JUST TO PASS A DISCRIMINATING BILL.

Marriott Hotels (including Fairfield Inns, Springhill Suites, Residence Inns, Courtyards, JW Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, and Renaissance) should be included as well. Although Bill Marriott did NOT actually donate to the campaign, he is a Mormon in good standing (meaning that he tithe to the church - thus, the money you pay at the hotel does in part end up with the church) - and although thes Fairfields, Springhills, most of the the rest are franchises, the do pay "license fees" and other money to Marriott International, which is a major contributor to Mormon-related charities, and a major employer in Utah.

Alex, you are struggling to understand, so let me help you. If you read my post again, you would see where your mistake is. But, just read this one SLOWLY, so you can understand. I did not say I wanted to boycott all gays. My example only referred to boycotting those who contributed to the No on 8 campaign. See, YOUR example of boycotting all gays regardless of their involvement in Prop 8 would be considered bigoted. In fact, your example is more akin to what the GLBT community is doing right now by targeting all Mormons, regardless of their involvement in Prop 8. The post just after yours is a wonderful example of the bigotry I am referring to. You guys are going to boycott Bill Marriott, not because he contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign, or even voted Yes(since he does not live in Cali), but simply because he is a Mormon. I don't think you can get a more blaring example of bigotry than that. Is that clear enough for you, Alex? Or do I need to use smaller words?O ye hypocrites!

Shannon. You're a bigot. And you obviously see gays and lesbians as less-than, or not deserving of the same rights everybody else gets. We're free to boycott, which is a perfectly acceptable method of protest. You're free to not spend your money at gay-owned businesses, or those that donated against Prop 8, *even though* gays getting married wouldn't harm you personally. This harms us personally, do you see the difference? If not, please just go elsewhere and stop posting your annoyingly obtuse comments here.

S.S.L - What you fail to see or understand is that I simply disagree with you. You can call me a bigot all you want(it must make you feel better), but in so doing, you are highlighting the problem that your side fails to acknowledge. Are there some people who are Yes on 8 who hate gays and think that they are all going to hell? Absolutely. Are there lots of people(like me)who have nothing against gays, but would just like to keep the traditional definition of marriage? And do those people also believe(as I do) that gays who form a union should have all the rights that I do as a married person? ABSOLUTELY! I also don't believe that people should have premarital sex or drink alcohol. I don't hate the people that do those things, nor do I think they are going to hell. I just disagree.You can continue screaming, Lemur, but constantly yelling "Bigot!" at someone just for disagreeing with you will never advance your cause.

everybody, listen up!! shannon is incapable of understanding rational, compassionate thoughts and arguments, so stop wasting your precious time and energy on her....she's nothing but a bigot and will never be able to pull her head far enough out of her own ass to see reality. let it go!! dedicate your focus toward people with loving hearts...people who are confused, not people who have no soul.

And that last post is a perfect example of why you have lost the same sex marriage battle in 30 states in just 4 years. Heaven forbid you actually listen to someone who respectfully disagrees with you!

Shannon - whoever you are - the reason they keep calling you slow and a bigot, and the reason you keep failing to understand, is the fact that, forgetting everything Prop 8 has to do with personal beliefs, Prop 8 is blatantly against the 14th Amendment of our United States Constitution. If you have a problem with basic civil rights, feel free to move to a country that enjoys discriminating against its own citizens.

The fact that something that takes away a citizens equal rights (no, sorry, California domestic partnership laws are NOT the same as marriage, no matter how many people have brainwashed you into believing this) was allowed to be on our ballot is appalling, and you should be ashamed to call yourself an American.

If you're proud of such a thing tainted by personal beliefs and bigotry to be allowed on an American voting ballot, then you, my friend, have no faith in the American way, and whether you are Christian, atheist, white, black, rich, or poor - you are still a bigot.

Hey Shannon! How are you? Your family? Friends? Did you have a good week? I'm doing well, just here doing what I can to make my little voice heard. I believe everyone should be treated equally so I was against prop 8. I also believe that you can't change the way people think or feel, the only true change you can make is the changes you make in your life. So I try to treat people the way I'd like to be treated, be more tolerant and think before I speak. I've never been to a YES ON 8 website or bulletin, there is nothing I can say that will change their minds, they'll only see me as an irritant. Besides, I would rather spend my time talking to friends, hanging out with family, being with the people I love... but that's just me.

Meliisa - I am doing well. Thanks! Unlike you, I had been on many No on 8 websites before the election because I always strive to understand the other person's viewpoint. But it seems as if the NO on 8 side has no desire to understand the other side. I post on here, because it takes all of 5 minutes and it's really easy to do. Unlike protesting in front on places of worship(where you will only be seen as an irritant), or roaming the streets of Los Angeles for hours and hours, stopping up traffic.Katie - As I said in my previous post, I think you should have all the rights that married couples do, just call it something different(you know, the same thing Elton John said. Is he a bigot too?). So you would then have all the same rights. And there would be no civil rights issue. See? Also, I find it a little strange that you asked me if I am proud to have voted according to my personal beliefs. Well, doesn't everyone vote according to there personal beliefs???

QU - maybe a little irritation is good. Isn't that what you guys are doing with all of those protests - irritating people? Actually, I think the state should only do civil unions for all people and leave marriage up to the churches. I'm disappointed in you QU. I mistakenly thought the reason you didn't delete posts that disagreed with your side was because you were open to listening to other people's viewpoints. Guess I was wrong. I understand that those on this site might feel threatened by someone who is making a valid point.

QU - I don't really have an agenda, but you guys certainly do. And wouldn't trying to overturn something that the majority of the people voted for be considered forcing one's agenda? You've only asked me twice(but hey, who's counting?), and I think I answered your question pretty clearly. In fact, I am surprised that you even suggested something that goes so against your strong beliefs of everyone being equal(so in case that wasn't clear, I don't think your idea is a good one). But, I'll explain my position AGAIN. I would like to keep the traditional definition of marriage. But, if I could choose, I would make it so that marriage was not used at all as a means of determining benefits at the state or federal level. Everyone would have a civil union because that is fair and equal.Now I have a question for you. It seems that even your definition of marriage would still exclude some people. What about the asexuals that don't want to get married? Why are they discriminated against by the government(in terms of receiving tax breaks, etc) just because they don't have the desire to marry someone. In fact, marriage in general discriminates against all single people. And why? Just because they are single. How unfair! And what about polygamous relationships? What if three people love each other? Are you including them in your fight for the "basic right" to marry?

Shannon - I am fine with federal civil unions only for gay and lesbian couples, but that means no marriage for heterosexual couples either. We all get civil unionized, fine.

Some asexuals want to get married some don't, marriage equality is about having the right to marry the person you love or not to marry anyone if you don't want to. I also don't want single people to be lacking any benefits and yes I support people who are polyamorous and believe in group marriage if that makes people happy.

QU - I know you didn't refer to me as a bigot. But just about everybody else that posted did. I did want to get back to the whole reason I posted to begin with, which was to point out that it is unfair and hateful to protest people who had nothing to do with the Prop 8 vote(like Bill Marriott). And if the roles were reversed and Prop 8 had not passed, and we had started creating blacklists and protesting those who had contributed to the NO on 8 campaign(regardless of whether they are gay or straight), you guys would be decrying us as haters and bigots.

It's very important to keep the discussion open with all the Shanons out there. She is just as hard-headed as we are. Yelling "bigot" does nothing to encourage someone to change their mind (remember caucusing?)

When Shannon says we already have civil unions and should be content with that, she should be reminded that black and white drinking fountains look just the same as well. No one is trying to change the definition of marriage. Just make it more inclusive. The slippery slope argument about polygamists and incestuous relationships is just avoiding the issue at hand, but it does show us that she equates gay relationships to these other groups.

For us, it is unfathomable to punish children with gay parents by not allowing the parents to marry all because a word in the dictionary might have a wider meaning.

It appears that most of the population is made up of Shannons, who are certain that they are protecting something sacred; something unchanged for millennia. But of course, marriage has been in constant change for all of that time, or maybe it hasn't... Perhaps Shannon will have to acquire a sizable dowry before any marriage on her part could be considered.

She needs to look inside of herself, examine these beliefs and then decide if they really represent the good she thinks she is doing.

anon-i think the slippery slope argument is silly, marriage is the union of 2 people, so whether it is a man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, it is still two people which doesn't anymore open the door for polygamy.

Prop 8 isn't a violation of anyone's equal rights. If you are a gay man, you are free to marry a woman, just like a straight man. Similarly, straight men and gay men are treated equally, in that neither can "marry" another man.

That is why this isn't the same as banning interracial marriage. In that case, a black man can't marry a white woman the same as a white man - black and white men are treated differently with respect to their ability to marry white women. The black man is denied a right solely because he is black.

An equal rights violation would be if straight men were allowed to marry women, but gay men were not - that would be denying the gay man equal rights based on their sexual preference. The fact that gay men don't want to marry women doesn't mean they are denied equal rights.

Unfortunately the federal government does not agree with the above post. As a gay man, I have NO right to get married. If I were to marry a female, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would define it as a fraudulent, 'sham' marriage.

I found this link, and had hoped to find a neatly prepared list of companies that we could, as a group, boycott to show our displeasure with their choice and persuade them to spend their money more wisely. Instead, what I find is a board of "rants and raves" against each other. Are we fighting for the same cause? If so, let's get some organization here, and compile an accurate list of organizations that supported Prop 8.....

Marriage is a religious institution…respect it for anyone with any one or get rid of it all together. Civil unions for everyone.My wife and I are considering divorce out of solidarity for our gay brothers and sisters.

LOL "all men are free to marry a woman" is like passing a law that says "everyone is free to worship Jesus any way they like, but not anyone else"... it applies equally to everyone, so where's the problem?

The problem is that Muslims and pagans, etc, are not free to worship Jesus without denying part of who they are.

Likewise, gay men are not actually "free" to marry women without denying their sexuality.

The other way to point out your fallacy goes like this:

A man and a woman are each interested in a third person... one of them is allowed to marry that person and the other isn't... the only difference between them is their sex/gender. How is that not gender discrimination?

How is that not exactly like your example of interracial marriage where a black man and a white man each want to marry a woman, but one can and one can't, and the only difference between them is race?

I was at the airport a while back, and saw a book. A neatly compiled listing of all the companies that supported Focus on the Family(a very ANTI-gay organization). Now, Focus on the Family donates to many anti-gay causes...even Yes on Prop 8. With that said, those companies obviously have an agenda that they are supporting and may be contributing to other ANTI-gay causes and organizations. I didn't buy the book I saw at the airport at that time; However, I am actively pursuing a copy now. Shannon made me realize that I don't want to support people that believe in(and actively try to leagally enforce) discrimination.

I have some friends that do not believe in gay equality. This doens't mean that I can't be their friend, it simply means we disagree. However, I'm certainly not going to give them money that they will use to support a cause that discriminates against me. I don't hate my friend,...I just love me enough to fight for what I believe in. Besides, I have to right to spend my money where-ever I choose.

So, I believe the best thing to do is go to the source. If corp A donates to ORG B, and ORG B supports CAUSE C(who is historically anti-gay), then don't shop with CORP A or ORG B. Those places are all the sources of funding. It makes sense. And Shannon, please understand that we(a majority of us anyway) don't hate these places, we just have to support ourselves and protect ourselves from those out to hurt us(like Prop 8).

I'm not going to post again, I just wanted to sound out my thought son the matter and this is what it is.

If you have explain to someone that there is a difference between having an open dialogue about marriage equality AND taking rights away from people, that person is not worth your time. Let's back to this: No gay money for antigay bigots. Thanks, QU for posting this list and any updates.

When I was settled and could choose I did business only with gay owned/friendly businesses in NOLA; it was not some social statement, it was just a feeling of being comfortable and able to do business without being snubbed or slighted while doing things I had to. Whenever I found this to not be the case, as in overhearing the owner of the only two laundries in the Quarter refer to us as fags, I took my business elsewhere. [Yes I took my laundry out of his dryers and left, the ferry ran on the hour and I didn't have this problem across the river.] But the main reason I felt obligated to do strictly gay business is for the same reason I feel we should all do business with small businesses; support of those trying to make it just like we are. A multi-national corporation's board doesn't give a D about the loss of one customer; however, a small or gay business usually does--especially a regular customer--because it does impact on their bottom line. Myself and about a dozen of my fellow workers even started making a weekly group trip across the river for a laundry without attitude and even closed a couple of smaller bigot shops by refusing to do business with them. You know the axiom: "Telephone, telegraph, tell a queen" and once it was out the majority (read this as gay) of the Quarter's residents quit doing business there. I do not apologise for these actions anymore than I would have someone apologise for the Montgomery bus boycott. It is my money and I do have the right to chose. I feel that if we all were more "selective" in our choices we would have more friendly choices available. After all is said and done: 1) someone will run a laundry, grocer, clothier, etc. no matter what--they want to be successful. 2) If their personal opinions and actions costs them their business--to bad. 3) when they lose that business due to those actions someone--hopefully with a more accepting and friendly attitude--will open a replacement for the failed business. Just simple economics; You either chose or lose. You chose to be treated less important to a business or you chose to not go back and let it be known (to all around you) that THIS is the reason you chose NOT to do business there.